2022年11月27日日曜日

”God must be, in essence, the sum total of all　existence”

 

「星条旗といっしょに。」といっしょに、というところがポイント。 これが例えば、星条旗を掲げるのは拒否して、メキシコの国旗だけ掲げていたら・・・「だったら、メキシコに移住しろよ」といわれてもしかたあるまい。 ポルノが性犯罪の増加に寄与することはありえるだろうが、 暴力描写が暴力犯罪の増加に寄与する割合とポルノが性犯罪に寄与する割合についてしっかりとした学術記事を引用すべき。

   

 ロシアウクライナ戦争を『18世紀の戦争』にした核兵器の存在。【今週のルトワック】｜奥山真司の地政学「アメリカ通信」
核兵器の抑止力だな。
なるほどね。

なぜ低脂肪乳は通常の牛乳より太るのか？


へええ。最近飲みすぎているかもしれないから控えよう、っと。

God: A Human History Reza Aslan 

で紹介した著者。おもしろそうだったのでパラっと飛ばし読みしてみた。

 If God is indivisible, then nothing can　come into existence that isn’t also God. At the very least, Creator and creation　must share the exact same eternal, indistinguishable, inseparable essence,



meaning everything that exists in the universe exists only insofar as it shares in　the existence of God. Therefore, God must be, in essence, the sum total of all　existence.



This, then, is the answer to the question Shams asked Rumi. It is what　Bayazid meant when he said, “Glory be to Me.” It is why Tustari called himself　“the proof of God.” These Sufis were not claiming to be divine; they were　claiming unity with the divine. Indeed, for most Sufis, the mistake of　Christianity lies not in violating the indivisible nature of God by transforming　God into a human being; rather, it lies in believing that God is only one　particular human being and no other. According to Sufism, if God is truly　indivisible, then God is all beings, and all beings are God.

神は不可分であるならば、創造神と被造物が分かれてある、というのもおかしい。被造物＝神なのだ。キリスト教の間違いはイエスキリトだけ神であるとした点であって、真実はすべてのものが神であるのだ、と。

ー汎神論の立場ですね。
    

Ms. ARMSTRONG: Religion is about helping us to deal with the sorrow that we see in life, helping us to find meaning in life, and helping us to live in relation to that transcendence that I was speaking about earlier. Religious people are ambitious. They want to feel enhanced. They want to feel at peace within themselves. They want to live generous lives. They want to live beyond selfishness, beyond ego.

All the world religions say that the way to find what we call God or Brahman, Nirvana, or Tao is to get beyond the prism of egotism, of selfishness which holds us in a little deadlock and limits our vision. That if we can get beyond that, especially in the practice of compassion, when we dethrone ourselves from the center of our world and put another there, we live much more richly and intensely.

Armstrong seeks to show that the modern Christian God (I hesitate to capitalize God in the way she uses the name) is vastly different from the “unknown” God of pre-modern times. God was once mysterious and unknown, so transcendent, so other that people could not hope to really know who he is or how he acted. But then modernism had to come along and ruin a perfectly good deity by insisting that God could be known, that he even desired to be known. What the author believes we need to do, of course, is return to God as a mystery, to God as an unknowable force who combines the best of all the world religions.


 The Case for God – a review

Barry Seagren

God is not a personal being who stands apart from and over his creation. God, Nirvana, Brahman or Dao is simply a name we give to ultimate reality. We can say nothing about god, not even that he/it exists or does not exist. Religious stories were never intended to be understood literally or factually; they are symbolic

 

　原理主義者は聖書を文字通りとって、全知全能の創造神である人格神を信じ、科学はそれを否定するが、 そうした観念は近年のものであって、それ以前は神は神秘で不可知であり、エゴを捨てて共感し慈しみをもっていきることでより豊かな生き方ができると教えるものだった、と。


 Inventing God

Psychology of Belief and the Rise of Secular Spirituality

By: Jon Mills

Review

The argument proceeds in three steps. The first is elaborated in three sections: an extended “Proslogion,” “Axioms” articulating a “thought experiment” to illustrate that God exists only as an idea, and a first chapter on God as a metaphysical question. Together these sections articulate Mills’s naturalist understanding of the God construct and his argument that there is no compelling empirical evidence for the existence of any entity that corresponds to this idea. The second step elaborates in two chapters the psychological factors that Mills contends explain why so many people over the course of history and across so many cultures have felt compelled to invent and believe in God. The last two chapters sketch the outlines of a spirituality without God. This effort to make room for a spirituality without God or religious doctrine is something of an effort to recapitulate aspects of both John Dewey’s and William James’s projects on new grounds.


本文 

ｐ２２０

 But unlike Tillich, who believes that such courage is to be　rooted and conditioned on God’s being, the existential humanist embraces　the acceptance of finitude and is inspired by it, for our being　toward death　is a catalyst for enjoying life in the present. The self-affirmation of being　is continually grounded in relation to our looming non- being as a meaningful trajectory of experience generated and regenerated in each　moment. This requires us to courageously seize upon our facticity as　being in relation　the acceptance of finitude and is inspired by it, for our being toward death　is a catalyst for enjoying life in the present. 

「神」という言葉に対応するもの/者は実在しない。しかし、人生を豊かにし、意味深くする神的な、あるいは聖なる経験はある、というわけでしょうね。

「神」や「聖なるもの」関係の記事を何本か読んできた。

A Semantic Interpretation of Rudolf Otto’s Religious Theory - Professor Yoshitsugu Sawai 


The Illusion of God's Presence

Only a God can save us.


　欧米ではいまだにキリスト教の神を信じている人たちがいるが、他方、ドーキンなどそうした神は妄想だ、という人たちもいる。

　全知全能で宇宙を創造し、死後に人間たちを天国行きと地獄行きを振り分けるおっさんなど存在しない、お参りして祈れば願いを叶えてくれる神様も仏様も存在しない、という意味では無神論が正しい。

　サンタクロースも天使も悪魔も妖怪も妖精も物理的に存在するわけではない。

　ただ、比喩として意味を持たないわけではない。

　無力な人間が生き続けていくには新たな神話、新たな物語が必要なのかもしれない。というより、芸術的な作品は神なき時代にもなんらかの啓示を提供している。

　また、例えば、従来のキリスト教的な愛や仏教的な慈しみの物語は創造神が存在しなくても、あるいは、死後の世界がなくても人生を豊かにしてくれる物語でもある。

　あるいは、また、カントのいうような「至高」” sublime"やオットーのいう聖なるものなど言葉を絶する体験は、いわゆる神が存在しなくとも、体験としては存在し、人生を生きるに耐えうるものにしてくれる。

　神は死んだが、すべての価値が無化したわけではない。





投稿者 時刻:

0 件のコメント:

コメントを投稿

登録: コメントの投稿 (Atom)